[Taxacom] Electronic publication
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Jan 9 18:39:29 CST 2017
Well, the slight potential problem with that idea, or so it seems to me, is that either an accompanying publication is necessary for new name availability or not. If so, then the publication will still need to be in some way Code compliant (e.g. what counts as published, etc.?), so we get at least some of the same problems. If not, then why would publishers bother to publish descriptions of new taxa that are already made available by other means? What happens if a new name is made available "entirely within the registration system", but for some reason it doesn't also get published?
On Tue, 10/1/17, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Electronic publication
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Hinrich Kaiser'" <chalcopis at yahoo.com>, "'Scott Thomson'" <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Tuesday, 10 January, 2017, 12:58 PM
Stephen Thorpe said:
> There is some doubt in
my mind. The issue is complicated, but this would, on
> the face of it, require taking the work of
taxonomists out of the system of
publication metrics which dominates professional science.
No it wouldn't.
Taxonomists would continue to publish their science exactly
as they always have, including detailed new species
descriptions, etc. The only difference -- which many
(most?) people probably wouldn't even notice -- is that
the technical compliance with the ICZN Code would not occur
within the publication (as it has for centuries), nor in a
combination of the publication and registration systems (as
it does now for electronically published works), but would
occur entirely within the registration system (a much more
robust version of the existing ZooBank).
The key point here is to
separate the legalistic aspects of conferring availability
on new names and associated acts from the science that
taxonomists do (and will of course continue to do). There
would be no "glory" in registering names any more
than there is glory in registering GenBank sequences. The
glory (and reputation) of the researchers would continue to
come from their scientific work, which would continue as it
has been in the current scientific publication paradigm.
None of that would change. What WOULD change is the
increasingly messy ambiguity that currently exists
concerning whether or not a modern publication complies with
Code requirements and (perhaps more messy) *when* it
More information about the Taxacom